"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

That article posed no challenge to me whatsoever. The article accuses Rand Paul of being a frequent guest on the Alex Jones Show. Great! Sounds good to me. The article says Rand Paul's fear is aimed at fictional fear rather than the real issue of drone violence overseas. No, Rand Paul is opposing the recent melding of the judicial and executive powers and the fact that the Federal government defines American Patriots and dissidents to be domestic terrorists making them eligible for a drone strike hellfire missile.

Now, Bourbon County is a small, rural, poor, relatively uneducated county in Kentucky, but obviously (and there's plenty of it if I need to go get it) Rand's campaign rhetoric is of a sort to attract this kind of @sshole, and remember, he laughed the whole thing off as crowd control before the press started digging into him for that tactic.

I don't give a sh!t what your thoughts are about moveon.org, you don't stomp someone's head into the curb a la American History X because they are trying to exercise the same rights you purport to advocate just because they're doing it at your expense.

Again, I feel that this must necessarily be the starting point as I pose the question to you again.

Now, Bourbon County is a small, rural, poor, relatively uneducated county in Kentucky, but obviously (and there's plenty of it if I need to go get it) Rand's campaign rhetoric is of a sort to attract this kind of @sshole,

and remember, he laughed the whole thing off as crowd control before the press started digging into him for that tactic.

He didn't laugh at anything, he condemned the incivility. This is petty nitpicking.

I don't give a sh!t what your thoughts are about moveon.org,

Moveon.org says that we should rip off Mitt Romney's genitals, sexually assault him, burn down cities, and spy on Republicans to watch them have sex if Obama loses. Moveon.org is a violent, vile organization that promotes violence on par with the KKK. I have no sympathy for arsonist, genital mutilating, sexual assault offenders.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ub-c0QRlEU

you don't stomp someone's head into the curb a la American History X because they are trying to exercise the same rights you purport to advocate just because they're doing it at your expense.

It was her shoulder that got stomped, if it was her head there would be a lot of blood and far more damage. Also, who said that it was ok to stomp political opponents? Me? Rand Paul? No, so you're scolding a strawman that doesn't exist.

Second, you fail to recognize how violent, vile, and gruesome that organization is. I honestly don't think you would express sympathy for KKK members getting kicked on the ground.

Again, I feel that this must necessarily be the starting point as I pose the question to you again.

Now, Bourbon County is a small, rural, poor, relatively uneducated county in Kentucky, but obviously (and there's plenty of it if I need to go get it) Rand's campaign rhetoric is of a sort to attract this kind of @sshole,

and remember, he laughed the whole thing off as crowd control before the press started digging into him for that tactic.

He didn't laugh at anything, he condemned the incivility. This is petty nitpicking.

I said he laughed it off, not that he "laughed at it"

I don't give a sh!t what your thoughts are about moveon.org,

Moveon.org says that we should rip off Mitt Romney's genitals, sexually assault him, burn down cities, and spy on Republicans to watch them have sex if Obama loses. Moveon.org is a violent, vile organization that promotes violence on par with the KKK. I have no sympathy for arsonist, genital mutilating, sexual assault offenders.

Moveon.org...SAYS...

Has moveon.org endorsed any arsonists? Mutilated anyone's genitals, outside of circumcision, which is common?

You're doing exactly what Rand was doing...you're demonizing them for their speech, simply because you don't like it.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the 1st amendment doesn't have an exception for your delicate sensibilities.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ub-c0QRlEU

you don't stomp someone's head into the curb a la American History X because they are trying to exercise the same rights you purport to advocate just because they're doing it at your expense.

It was her shoulder that got stomped, if it was her head there would be a lot of blood and far more damage. Also, who said that it was ok to stomp political opponents? Me? Rand Paul? No, so you're scolding a strawman that doesn't exist.

You don't get a concussion in your shoulder.

Second, you fail to recognize how violent, vile, and gruesome that organization is. I honestly don't think you would express sympathy for KKK members getting kicked on the ground.

You're damn right I would. When I said NO ONE deserves to have their head stomped, I meant NO ONE deserves to have their heads stomped into concrete, including @ssholes I don't agree with or like, generally.

Again, I feel that this must necessarily be the starting point as I pose the question to you again.

Moveon.org says that we should rip off Mitt Romney's genitals, sexually assault him, burn down cities, and spy on Republicans to watch them have sex if Obama loses. Moveon.org is a violent, vile organization that promotes violence on par with the KKK. I have no sympathy for arsonist, genital mutilating, sexual assault offenders.

Moveon.org...SAYS...

Has moveon.org endorsed any arsonists? Mutilated anyone's genitals, outside of circumcision, which is common?

They threatened to do so and rallied others to do it too.

You're doing exactly what Rand was doing...you're demonizing them for their speech, simply because you don't like it.

It is my 1st Amendment right to condemn speech with my speech. You're trying to tell me that I'm not allowed to express my right to free speech because you don't approve of speech that condemns other speech.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the 1st amendment doesn't have an exception for your delicate sensibilities.

Quit trying to tell me that I don't have the right to verbally object to speech I don't like.

I see no offense committed by Rand Paul.

Of course you didn't. You don't want to see it.

Name a specific action committed by Rand Paul directly that offends any reasonable sensibilities. You can't name one. You can only allude to others. Rand Paul =/= other people. Do.you.understand.

At 3/10/2013 6:51:22 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:That man is not Rand Paul nor appointed by Rand Paul

Really, because in every other campaign, either the candidate or their campaign manager appoints the county coordinators for their campaign.

Campaign manager. Rand Paul isn't literally going to appoint a person to be head for every single county of his state.

Well, thank God his Campaign Manager is well organized enough to do this. I mean, spending a week to meet with the 100 people, in chunks of 5 min each, who are going to represent you in each of the legal districts from which your votes are coming...

Moveon.org says that we should rip off Mitt Romney's genitals, sexually assault him, burn down cities, and spy on Republicans to watch them have sex if Obama loses. Moveon.org is a violent, vile organization that promotes violence on par with the KKK. I have no sympathy for arsonist, genital mutilating, sexual assault offenders.

Moveon.org...SAYS...

Has moveon.org endorsed any arsonists? Mutilated anyone's genitals, outside of circumcision, which is common?

They threatened to do so and rallied others to do it too.

Here's your chance to PROVE IT.

You're doing exactly what Rand was doing...you're demonizing them for their speech, simply because you don't like it.

It is my 1st Amendment right to condemn speech with my speech. You're trying to tell me that I'm not allowed to express my right to free speech because you don't approve of speech that condemns other speech.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the 1st amendment doesn't have an exception for your delicate sensibilities.

Quit trying to tell me that I don't have the right to verbally object to speech I don't like.

I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you that you don't have the right to spread false claims about an organization with whom you do not agree (this is what is known as libel/defamation of character), nor do you have the right to endorse violence against one of its members.

Outside of those legal prohibitions on your pie hole moving up and down and pushing out (hot) air, you go on with your bad self, geo.

I see no offense committed by Rand Paul.

Of course you didn't. You don't want to see it.

Name a specific action committed by Rand Paul directly that offends any reasonable sensibilities. You can't name one. You can only allude to others. Rand Paul =/= other people. Do.you.understand.

Rand Paul's staff = Rand Paul's staff.

Rand Paul calling one of his campaign staff's actions "crown control" when that action involved that staff member (volunteer staff=campaign staff) stomping a person's head into a concrete curb = Rand's actions (and speech), as well as reactions to one of his staff breaking the law.

He gets credit for that, right (and, I already posted the link, man...)?

At 3/10/2013 7:12:02 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:They threatened to do so and rallied others to do it too.

Here's your chance to PROVE IT.

Did you not see the video I posted? I'll post it again. Moveon.org said to rip off Romney's genitals, sexually assault him, burn down cities, and spy on Republicans having sex from the sky.

Quit trying to tell me that I don't have the right to verbally object to speech I don't like.

I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you that you don't have the right to spread false claims about an organization with whom you do not agree (this is what is known as libel/defamation of character), nor do you have the right to endorse violence against one of its members.

I did not spread false claims. How many times do I have to show you proof over and over again.

Name a specific action committed by Rand Paul directly that offends any reasonable sensibilities. You can't name one. You can only allude to others. Rand Paul =/= other people. Do.you.understand.

Rand Paul's staff = Rand Paul's staff.

Rand Paul calling one of his campaign staff's actions "crown control" when that action involved that staff member (volunteer staff=campaign staff) stomping a person's head into a concrete curb = Rand's actions (and speech), as well as reactions to one of his staff breaking the law.

He gets credit for that, right (and, I already posted the link, man...)?

He said there was incivility and criticized the crowd control for not doing its job. Obviously Rand Paul's organizers slipped up and obviously Rand Paul doesn't want the actions that aren't his to be pinned on him.

At 3/10/2013 7:12:02 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:They threatened to do so and rallied others to do it too.

Here's your chance to PROVE IT.

Did you not see the video I posted?

Did YOU see it?

I'll post it again.

Cool. Watch it this time. What that was, was a bit of parody which was used as a call for voter turnout and against voter suppression.

Moveon.org said to rip off Romney's genitals,

NO THEY DID NOT. You see what you did right there? THAT was libel.

sexually assault him,

An octogenarian black lady said that if he stole the election that he was gonna punch him in the nuts. PERIOD.

If that's your idea of sexual assault, you're even stranger than I thought.

burn down cities,

Again, NO THEY DID NOT. This is also libel. (you're lucky no one is influenced by your crazy or your @ss would be successfully getting sued left and RIGHT.)

An old lady said that if the GOP steals the election through voter suppression (subverting the constitution), she was gonna "burn this motha down" (which is a reference to the '67 riots of the so-called "Long, Hot Summer"...this would be a defense of the constitution fully endorsed by the framers...I thought you liked the constitution. What happened? You're only a constitutionalist when it supports your point of view?

That's pouring the irony on a bit thick, isn't it?)

and spy on Republicans having sex from the sky.

ONCE AGAIN - THIS IS LIBEL. The threat to watch people have sex from beyond the grave was SPECIFICALLY MADE AT DEMOCRATS, ESPECIALLY THE ONES IN THE ACTORS' FAMILIES. (if they didn't get out and vote)

Quit trying to tell me that I don't have the right to verbally object to speech I don't like.

I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you that you don't have the right to spread false claims about an organization with whom you do not agree (this is what is known as libel/defamation of character), nor do you have the right to endorse violence against one of its members.

I did not spread false claims. How many times do I have to show you proof over and over again.

ONCE WAS ENOUGH TO COVER YOUR LIES. THANK YOU. I JUST MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME.

Name a specific action committed by Rand Paul directly that offends any reasonable sensibilities. You can't name one. You can only allude to others. Rand Paul =/= other people. Do.you.understand.

Rand Paul's staff = Rand Paul's staff.

Rand Paul calling one of his campaign staff's actions "crown control" when that action involved that staff member (volunteer staff=campaign staff) stomping a person's head into a concrete curb = Rand's actions (and speech), as well as reactions to one of his staff breaking the law.

He gets credit for that, right (and, I already posted the link, man...)?

He said there was incivility and criticized the crowd control for not doing its job. Obviously Rand Paul's organizers slipped up and obviously Rand Paul doesn't want the actions that aren't his to be pinned on him.

And at what point on the video does a drone attack someone on American soil?

Because that's what Rand was blithering about when he could have actually been discussing real issues involving drones.

See, now you're being dishonest about Paul. Will you people ever just be honest with one another?

What Paul said was that regardless of if Obama ever would (and Paul says he is happy to take the president at his word and assume he wouldn't), it doesn't matter because Obama paved the way, and worshipers of this dogsh!t president notwithstanding, he ain't gonna hold that spot forever, so someone's gotta consider that the next person might.

Obama may not be worse than Bush, but what he's doing is opening the floodgates such that the next Bush to hit the scene is gonna be 100X worse than Dubya, and 1,000,000X more efficient.

That article posed no challenge to me whatsoever. The article accuses Rand Paul of being a frequent guest on the Alex Jones Show. Great! Sounds good to me. The article says Rand Paul's fear is aimed at fictional fear rather than the real issue of drone violence overseas. No, Rand Paul is opposing the recent melding of the judicial and executive powers and the fact that the Federal government defines American Patriots and dissidents to be domestic terrorists making them eligible for a drone strike hellfire missile.

The part that interested me was:

'...and largely lost in the discussion is the fact that his position is identical to that of the White House.

'In a letter to Paul, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote that the United States government has no legal authority to use armed drones in domestic situations, but conceded that he could imagine a possible scenario in which it would be lawful to avert a truly imminent and "catastrophic" threat. During his filibuster, Paul said: "Nobody questions, if planes are flying towards the Twin Towers, whether they can be repulsed by the military; nobody questions whether, [if] a terrorist with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is attacking us, whether they can be repelled."'

I agree that the libertarian position (i.e., for the rights and liberties of US citizens) is correct and seems to be against the use of drones on American soil.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

And at what point on the video does a drone attack someone on American soil?

Because that's what Rand was blithering about when he could have actually been discussing real issues involving drones.

See, now you're being dishonest about Paul. Will you people ever just be honest with one another?

What Paul said was that regardless of if Obama ever would (and Paul says he is happy to take the president at his word and assume he wouldn't), it doesn't matter because Obama paved the way, and worshipers of this dogsh!t president notwithstanding, he ain't gonna hold that spot forever, so someone's gotta consider that the next person might.

Obama may not be worse than Bush, but what he's doing is opening the floodgates such that the next Bush to hit the scene is gonna be 100X worse than Dubya, and 1,000,000X more efficient.

Slippery slopes and death from above and stuff.

There is no legal difference between assassinating someone with a drone and assassinating someone with a sniper rifle or poison. It's like saying a SCUD missile might be used against American soil.

The question is whether you can kill an American citizen who is not an immiment threat ANYWHERE not whether drones will hit American soil.

Focusing on Jane Fonda and American cafes frames things such that killing an American overseas is not the problem. This isn't a coincidence, because no politician, especially on the right, is interested in saying "We shouldn't have killed Anwar." I actually read an article where a CIA interviewee said that to anyone who hopes to interrupt the drone program by defending Anwar, "Good f8cking luck." Politicians are too scared of backlash to actually say "If we had a chance to kill Anwar again, should we not have taken it?"

Usually, filibusters have a point behind them. Rand made his talking point about Jane Fonda.

Rand didn't ask "Will Holder promise no future administration will blow up a cafe in America?"

He says he wants an answer from Obama on whether "he will allow Jane Fonda to be hit with a hellfire missile." Just a simple "no," IIRC.

Holder gives his obvious "no," and Rand Paul is off to talk about how Holder's response is irrelevant. Meanwhile, the public is talking about drone attacks on American soil.

And at what point on the video does a drone attack someone on American soil?

Because that's what Rand was blithering about when he could have actually been discussing real issues involving drones.

See, now you're being dishonest about Paul. Will you people ever just be honest with one another?

What Paul said was that regardless of if Obama ever would (and Paul says he is happy to take the president at his word and assume he wouldn't), it doesn't matter because Obama paved the way, and worshipers of this dogsh!t president notwithstanding, he ain't gonna hold that spot forever, so someone's gotta consider that the next person might.

Obama may not be worse than Bush, but what he's doing is opening the floodgates such that the next Bush to hit the scene is gonna be 100X worse than Dubya, and 1,000,000X more efficient.

Slippery slopes and death from above and stuff.

There is no legal difference between assassinating someone with a drone and assassinating someone with a sniper rifle or poison. It's like saying a SCUD missile might be used against American soil.

The question is whether you can kill an American citizen who is not an immiment threat ANYWHERE not whether drones will hit American soil.

Focusing on Jane Fonda and American cafes frames things such that killing an American overseas is not the problem. This isn't a coincidence, because no politician, especially on the right, is interested in saying "We shouldn't have killed Anwar." I actually read an article where a CIA interviewee said that to anyone who hopes to interrupt the drone program by defending Anwar, "Good f8cking luck." Politicians are too scared of backlash to actually say "If we had a chance to kill Anwar again, should we not have taken it?"

Usually, filibusters have a point behind them. Rand made his talking point about Jane Fonda.

Rand didn't ask "Will Holder promise no future administration will blow up a cafe in America?"

He says he wants an answer from Obama on whether "he will allow Jane Fonda to be hit with a hellfire missile." Just a simple "no," IIRC.

Holder gives his obvious "no," and Rand Paul is off to talk about how Holder's response is irrelevant. Meanwhile, the public is talking about drone attacks on American soil.

There is, in fact, a difference, and here's what it is.

Drones are controlled through video cameras and joysticks, and the faces of the targets, and everyone else, are blurred out on the video feeds.

Snipers get SOME idea of the target before carrying out the assassination.

Drones create the "faceless enemy" of the dystopian nightmare such that the soldier carrying out the assassination order has little idea of who is affected by his actions or WHERE there are located when he carries out those actions.

If you don't see that, I have to assume you're not much of a reader (just what I choose to BELIEVE about you in this instance).